C is a low level language. It is like ASM but with lots of structure that allows for much faster coding. The programmer is supposed to be in tune with his/her hardware, and so be able to write code to best suit it. It is amazing the number of C/++ programmers I see now who do not know the difference between the stack and the heap, or who do not know the mechanics of a function call or a memory allocation.
You use the word 'monopoly' in two different senses.
NSI were the only company able to do domain registrations. Nobody else could.
However, plenty of companies offer operating systems and applications. People just *willingly choose* Microsoft. Their only 'monopoly' is in the sense of having earned a dominant market share.
Yes - turn off transparency so it just looks like a normal pic of some girls, and when the boss is gone, re-enable transparency so that you can see through their clothes.
The theory of relativity incorporates the speed of light as its speed and time limit, and from there it is a simple matter (when expressed in equations) to show that FTL events propagate backwards in time.
There is no such theory that has the speed of sound as a limit (and if there were, I do not think it would be widely believed).
Personally I find all this misinformation quite funny, don't you?
Go back and read that thread about the seven mathematical problems, if you haven't already - there is so much deadheadedness there that one can have a very entertaining few hours.
Your proof assumes that relativity is correct, and it is nothing new to prove that if relativity is correct, then c is the absolute limit.
This is a generic reply to a whole bunch of posts earlier too: someone said "Einstein is bollocks, things could go faster than c", and a whole lot of lamers replied, quoting Einstein's theories (which, surprise surprise, so that things cannot go faster than c), and what's worse, some of them even got moderated up for it. Any intelligent reply would have addressed what the poster was saying, and given reasons why we choose to believe that relativity holds.
Because the explanation is almost completely wrong? Laymen with heads filled with such nonsense are the reason for (more than) half of the totally rubbish posts that appear on physics and mathematics threads on Slashdot.
It's not a "leading edge" as such - it's merely 'detection' of the wave itself before it arrives, by using quantum effects. As a single quantum, it does not really have a front and back, but these are convenient terms to help us mere mortals visualise it. If the whole wave were not sent, there would be no edge detected and no counter-pulse generated.
To answer a previous question about a negative time taken: Firstly I will recap the article's explanation: When the cesium chamber 'detects' the incoming wave, it creates two new waves using the energy of the cesium particles; which travel in opposite directions. The forward-traveling one exits the chamber, and the backwards-traveling one hits the original wave, and destructive interference occurs, which destroys both waves and returns the energy of the two into the cesium chamber.
So the emitted wave is 'not really the same' as the wave that entered. I use '' because in a classical sense it is not; and the wave *did not* traverse part of the distance in between. However, classical intuition goes out the door in quantum situations, and we are forced to say that the emitted wave is *the same* as the incident wave, and hence that this wave 'travelled' faster than c.
Actually, that wouldn't help -- maybe both ends of the rod would move at the speed you suggest, but then there would be no exceeding of c; and the middle of the rod may lag behind anyway.
What he was saying is that they have not been able to make light traveling in a vacuum, go faster than c, but it is common for light in other media (such as cesium, or CNN) to go faster than c.
There should be a page that lists all the common karmawhore topics, all those things that everybody except newbies knows. That way, these karmawhores would have no excuse left for their redundant topics.
This list might include things such as: - partners.nytimes.com - The answer is 42 - I know the answer but it doesn't fit in my margin - Signal 11
Have you seen N64 and PSX2 on a computer monitor, or just a TV screen? TVs blur the edges , making jaggies look smooth.
I remember seeing a VGA 320x200x256color screen for the first time, and thinking how ugly those (perfectly sharp and clear) little rectangles were, compared to the smoothness of all the edges on my 256x176x16color speccy on a 21" TV.
All that this experiment could possibly achieve is to find more instances (or perhaps a counterexample) of Einstein's theory.
This is not a proof and goes no way whatsoever towards constituting a proof, or even providing confirmation of the theory, as any philosphy student will know.
No doubt it will be very interesting to see the measured effects of the experiment though.
Pi isn't infinite; it's in fact between 3 and 4 - two finite numbers.
You can get an exact answer - if a circle has radius 1 then its circumference is (2*pi). It's true that I can't express this exactly by using decimal expansions, but I have no wish to use decimal expansions (which didn't even exist in Euclid's time).
You aren't going to argue that pi is somehow a "fuzzy" number and it doesn't have an exact value, are you?
Re. the previous post.. I agree (sort of ) that you can't "give an example to the end of numbers", but I have no desire or need to give such an example, since I can prove the theorem without the need for examples.
That's why you PROVE it for all possible natural numbers, so that you don't have to go and check each one!
The statement I gave in my previous post on this thread is such an example: it is true no matter how high you go or how long you go on for, there is no counterexample, it does not change after a billion digits, and it is 100% totally rock solid undeniable truth.
In case my example was too complicated for you, here is a simple one:
"Every number greater than 5, is greater than 2."
Are you going to tell me that this might suddenly become untrue after a billion digits?
The most unlikely thing that will ever happen on Internet is a webcast, hosted on a Beowulf cluster, of Natalie Portman pouring hot grits down her pants.
If you are going to get pedantic, then "For every" refers to the universal logical operator, whose symbol looks like an upside down 'A'.
Infinity does not come into this. Any attempt to introduce infinity will just complicate the problem, and I will bet more than a million dollars (Well, I would if i had it) that a proof or disproof would also not involve infinity.
Here is an example of another problem that involves the universal operator, but does not require infinity:
"Every multiple of 9 has its digits sum to a multiple of 9."
It is easy to prove this without using infinity. (I can do so if you like, but it might confuse you, but by all means reply to this and request it if you need to.)
Slashdot Mirror
C is a low level language. It is like ASM but with lots of structure that allows for much faster coding. The programmer is supposed to be in tune with his/her hardware, and so be able to write code to best suit it. It is amazing the number of C/++ programmers I see now who do not know the difference between the stack and the heap, or who do not know the mechanics of a function call or a memory allocation.
Could a Linux (not windows) user answer this for me please.
Just how does Microsoft control *your* desktop?
Last week ?
(A French court ruled that yahoo.com had to pay them $10,000 and stop selling neo-nazi propaganda. The story was on slashdot.)
You use the word 'monopoly' in two different senses.
NSI were the only company able to do domain registrations. Nobody else could.
However, plenty of companies offer operating systems and applications. People just *willingly choose* Microsoft. Their only 'monopoly' is in the sense of having earned a dominant market share.
Yes - turn off transparency so it just looks like a normal pic of some girls, and when the boss is gone, re-enable transparency so that you can see through their clothes.
You missed the point entirely.
The theory of relativity incorporates the speed of light as its speed and time limit, and from there it is a simple matter (when expressed in equations) to show that FTL events propagate backwards in time.
There is no such theory that has the speed of sound as a limit (and if there were, I do not think it would be widely believed).
Personally I find all this misinformation quite funny, don't you?
Go back and read that thread about the seven mathematical problems, if you haven't already - there is so much deadheadedness there that one can have a very entertaining few hours.
Your proof assumes that relativity is correct, and it is nothing new to prove that if relativity is correct, then c is the absolute limit.
This is a generic reply to a whole bunch of posts earlier too: someone said "Einstein is bollocks, things could go faster than c", and a whole lot of lamers replied, quoting Einstein's theories (which, surprise surprise, so that things cannot go faster than c), and what's worse, some of them even got moderated up for it. Any intelligent reply would have addressed what the poster was saying, and given reasons why we choose to believe that relativity holds.
Because the explanation is almost completely wrong? Laymen with heads filled with such nonsense are the reason for (more than) half of the totally rubbish posts that appear on physics and mathematics threads on Slashdot.
It's not a "leading edge" as such - it's merely 'detection' of the wave itself before it arrives, by using quantum effects.
As a single quantum, it does not really have a front and back, but these are convenient terms to help us mere mortals visualise it. If the whole wave were not sent, there would be no edge detected and no counter-pulse generated.
To answer a previous question about a negative time taken:
Firstly I will recap the article's explanation: When the cesium chamber 'detects' the incoming wave, it creates two new waves using the energy of the cesium particles; which travel in opposite directions. The forward-traveling one exits the chamber, and the backwards-traveling one hits the original wave, and destructive interference occurs, which destroys both waves and returns the energy of the two into the cesium chamber.
So the emitted wave is 'not really the same' as the wave that entered. I use '' because in a classical sense it is not; and the wave *did not* traverse part of the distance in between. However, classical intuition goes out the door in quantum situations, and we are forced to say that the emitted wave is *the same* as the incident wave, and hence that this wave 'travelled' faster than c.
All we gotta do now is build long series of cesium chambers between major cities.
Actually, that wouldn't help -- maybe both ends of the rod would move at the speed you suggest, but then there would be no exceeding of c; and the middle of the rod may lag behind anyway.
What he was saying is that they have not been able to make light traveling in a vacuum, go faster than c, but it is common for light in other media (such as cesium, or CNN) to go faster than c.
There should be a page that lists all the common karmawhore topics, all those things that everybody except newbies knows. That way, these karmawhores would have no excuse left for their redundant topics.
This list might include things such as:
- partners.nytimes.com
- The answer is 42
- I know the answer but it doesn't fit in my margin
- Signal 11
*LOL*
Go back to third grade, boy.
Have you seen N64 and PSX2 on a computer monitor, or just a TV screen? TVs blur the edges , making jaggies look smooth.
I remember seeing a VGA 320x200x256color screen for the first time, and thinking how ugly those (perfectly sharp and clear) little rectangles were, compared to the smoothness of all the edges on my 256x176x16color speccy on a 21" TV.
Also, it won't prove anything if the result comes out as expected.
Can anyone say karmawhore.
I tried emailing .me@.seldo..com, but it didn't work.
All that this experiment could possibly achieve is to find more instances (or perhaps a counterexample) of Einstein's theory.
This is not a proof and goes no way whatsoever towards constituting a proof, or even providing confirmation of the theory, as any philosphy student will know.
No doubt it will be very interesting to see the measured effects of the experiment though.
I think you mean "Euclidean geometry".
Pi isn't infinite; it's in fact between 3 and 4 - two finite numbers.
You can get an exact answer - if a circle has radius 1 then its circumference is (2*pi). It's true that I can't express this exactly by using decimal expansions, but I have no wish to use decimal expansions (which didn't even exist in Euclid's time).
You aren't going to argue that pi is somehow a "fuzzy" number and it doesn't have an exact value, are you?
Re. the previous post.. I agree (sort of ) that you can't "give an example to the end of numbers", but I have no desire or need to give such an example, since I can prove the theorem without the need for examples.
This is pure mathematics, not computer science.
Computation questions and times are of no relevance whatsoever.
That's why you PROVE it for all possible natural numbers, so that you don't have to go and check each one!
The statement I gave in my previous post on this thread is such an example: it is true no matter how high you go or how long you go on for, there is no counterexample, it does not change after a billion digits, and it is 100% totally rock solid undeniable truth.
In case my example was too complicated for you, here is a simple one:
"Every number greater than 5, is greater than 2."
Are you going to tell me that this might suddenly become untrue after a billion digits?
The most unlikely thing that will ever happen on Internet is a webcast, hosted on a Beowulf cluster, of Natalie Portman pouring hot grits down her pants.
If you are going to get pedantic, then "For every" refers to the universal logical operator, whose symbol looks like an upside down 'A'.
Infinity does not come into this. Any attempt to introduce infinity will just complicate the problem, and I will bet more than a million dollars (Well, I would if i had it) that a proof or disproof would also not involve infinity.
Here is an example of another problem that involves the universal operator, but does not require infinity:
"Every multiple of 9 has its digits sum to a multiple of 9."
It is easy to prove this without using infinity.
(I can do so if you like, but it might confuse you, but by all means reply to this and request it if you need to.)